Shooter, Scientist
Archive for the ‘Legal’ Category.
NPR has an interesting article about members of a small Mexican community taking up illegal arms (while technically legal to own private arms in Mexico, as a practical matter it’s quite impossible) to defend their town from drug-related violence.
Remember all the fun times with copyright troll Righthaven?
A Swiss ISP acquired Righthaven’s domain name in a court-ordered auction and intends to offer web hosting service to publishers worried about the type of abusive threats that the old Righthaven was known for.
Oh, the irony.
The House of Representatives and the Senate are considering several “internet blacklist” bills — “PROTECT-IP” in the Senate, and “Stop Online Piracy Act” (“SOPA”) in the House.
If passed, these laws would have a devastating effect on free speech, internet infrastructure, privacy, and current “safe harbor” provisions for websites all while doing little to stop the availability of pirated content.
To quote the EFF:
As drafted, the legislation would grant the government and private parties unprecedented power to interfere with the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). The government would be able to force ISPs and search engines to redirect or dump users’ attempts to reach certain websites’ URLs. In response, third parties will woo average users to alternative servers that offer access to the entire Internet (not just the newly censored U.S. version), which will create new computer security vulnerabilities as the reliability and universality of the DNS evaporates.
It gets worse: Under SOPA’s provisions, service providers (including hosting services) would be under new pressure to monitor and police their users’ activities. While PROTECT-IP targeted sites “dedicated to infringing activities,” SOPA targets websites that simply don’t do enough to track and police infringement (and it is not at all clear what would be enough). And it creates new powers to shut down folks who provide tools to help users get access to the Internet the rest of the world sees (not just the “U.S. authorized version”).
I find it terrifying that the US government is even considering such a blatant censorship scheme. This sounds like something one would expect from oppressive regimes, not from a Western nation, and certainly not from the U
Please, contact your Representatives and Senators. This is a Big Deal.
Here.
Interesting part:
[Justice Department legal adviser Amid] Torres said the measures will include a requirement that shooting ranges keep logs of how much ammunition their members use and cap the number of bullets each client can fire in target practice at 500 per year.
Police Department legal adviser Estrella Mar Vega voiced support for the measures as “more specific and stringent controls to monitor whether people who say they acquire weapons and ammunition at shooting clubs are using them for such purposes.”The attorney deemed it necessary to limit the use of weapons and ammunition that licensed vendors can have and distinguish that from competitive target shooting and hunting.
I went through 150 rounds of 5.56mm ammo the last time I was at the range, and that was a pretty laid-back session. If I’m shooting .22LR, going through a brick at the range in a single day is not uncommon. I’m sure there’s plenty of people who go through 500 rounds in a day or two, let alone an entire year.
I fail to see what such restrictions would seek to accomplish.
In addition, this restriction stands out:
The measure will also limit the quantity of weapons that a person con posses[sic] to take to a gun club.
“It is imperative that we control the transfer from one place to another of the firearms that are owned in Puerto Rico. With this measure we avoid possible tragedies by gun accidents and thefts,” Torres said.
Yes, they want to limit the number of firearms one can transport from home to the range. What the hell will that do?
Despite some of the tightest firearms restrictions in the United States, Puerto Rico also has one of the highest homicide rates, with drug-related gun violence blamed for the majority of the killings.
Gee, ya think?
Violent crime is a symptom. Get rid of drug smuggling, and violent crime drops through the floor. Being that the drug smugglers have no qualms about violating prohibitions on drugs, I suspect they will continue to have no problems violating firearms restrictions. Once again, gun control only affects the law-abiding.
One good thing, however, is mentioned. They say that after the Heller case, there’s now 800 registered gun owners in DC. Yes, it sucks to have to jump through the outrageous hoops they put in the way, but at least some people are standing up for their rights.
The recent court ruling in California, which overturned the state’s gay marriage ban1 cited the Heller case thusly:
Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis
for a law. Williams v Illinois, 399 US 235, 239 (1970). The “ancient lineage” of a classification does not make it rational. Heller, 509 US at 327. Rather, the state must have an interest
apart from the fact of the tradition itself.
Cool.
Just a reminder to fellow Arizonans: the new law that removes the permit requirement for concealed carry goes into effect on July 29th. Please wait until then before carrying concealed without a permit.
Also, please note that there are some perks to having a permit, such as discounts at the occasional pro-gun-rights eatery, as well as bypassing NICS checks on new gun purchases, and interstate reciprocity.
…and big things happen. How come I always miss the big things like the McDonald ruling coming down?
Oh well. Many congratulations to Gura, NRA, the law-abiding citizenry in oppressed localities in the US, et al.
I don’t understand the objection that some people have to Mirandizing terrorist suspects in the US, particularly when they’re apprehended by civilian police agencies.
That said, I can see why it would not be appropriate for the military to Mirandize people they capture on foreign battlefields, but for domestic police agencies arresting people on US soil? No excuse, period. That the FBI contacted the CIA when arresting the suspected Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad to see if they should Mirandize him left me chilled — he’s a US citizen on US soil, yet it’s not automatically assumed that he should be accorded the rights and protections that any other US citizen being arrested? What have we done? How far will this go? How do we stop this?
I’m a firm supporter in due process, and feel that everyone, even suspected terrorists, deserves to be treated humanely, have access to legal counsel, and a fair and speedy trial. I strongly feel that there are absolutely zero circumstances where torture is justified1 .Indeed, I feel that it’s these very principles that separate civilized people from uncivilized people.
Indeed, I’d like to see such protections extended to those captured by the military overseas. While I understand that different rules apply to the military than to civilian police agencies and courts (and that different rules apply to “prisoners of war” vs. “detainees”), I don’t see how it’s unreasonable to ask that these basic protections be afforded to such detainees. If they’ve truly done bad things, then it shouldn’t be difficult to show that in an open and fair court and then legally sentence them to an appropriate punishment (e.g. imprisonment) if they’re convicted. If they haven’t done bad things, then they should be released. Monitor them, perhaps, if its suspected that they’ll lead investigators to other bad guys, but holding people without trial is simply wrong.
The fact that we’re holding detainees without trial and even considering not Mirandizing terrorist suspects — US citizen or not — arrested by civilian police agencies is a dark stain upon this nation’s honor.
I was recently summoned for jury duty1. In the paperwork, I noted that they prohibit weapons beyond a security checkpoint. As this is a courthouse, I have no problem with such a prohibition.
Still, I wanted to be sure I could legally carry up to the checkpoint, so I gave them a call. It went something like this:
Operator: “Jurry Commissioner’s office. How may I help you?”
Me: “Hi, I was recently summoned for jury duty and in the paperwork, I noticed that weapons are prohibited past the security checkpoint. Is there a place to check legally-carried weapons prior to the checkpoint?”
Operator: “Yes. That’s not a problem. We have plenty of lockers to hold privately-owned weapons for jurors.”
Me: “Excellent. Thank you.”
Not only is the lawful carriage of arms commonplace here, but even the courthouses have lockers to store firearms prior to the checkpoint. I seem to recall there actually being a law about this, as I saw similar lockers at the Motor Vehicles Department, but I can’t recall what specific law that was…
I love the fact that I can make a call regarding the storage of privately-owned weapons and get a simple, factual response. No assumption that I’m a police officer (as has happened a few times at the airport when checking guns), no questions of “Why would you bring a gun to a courthouse?”, or anything else along those lines.
As of the beginning of the month, it’s legal to store firearms inside locked vehicles in the parking lots of universities in Arizona.
Naturally, there’s been a small, but relatively minor, amount of PSH about this whole issue. One of the comments submitted to the Daily Wildcat — the University of Arizona’s daily newspaper — was from Brett Wolgemuth, a systems engineering graduate student who was an undergrad at Virginia Tech on that fateful day in April in 2007.
I’ve commented on a few of his sentences below:
Allowing firearms on campus under any condition is a recipe for disaster.
Oh? Care to cite historical data that would back this claim up? Police carry guns on campus all the time without any problems, and citizens in several other states (such as Utah, among others) have carried concealed firearms on campuses for some time without issues.
It only takes one incident in a parking lot, or near a car for someone to go off.
I don’t disagree. However, this is exceedingly unlikely — there’s a vast number of firearms owners in this country, and only the tiniest number of them just “go off” every year. I’d be far more concerned with someone getting mugged, assaulted, or raped in a campus parking lot.
Yes, I do have faith in my fellow man, but I’m not willing to bet my life on it.
Same here. That’s why I carry nearly everywhere I’m not legally forbidden to do so, but I digress.
The law not only allows people to conceal guns in their cars, but they do not have to have a concealed weapons permit to do it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that would mean that anyone with a gun could come onto campus and have it concealed in his car.
That is, as best as I understand the law, correct. Considering that one can openly carry firearms just about anywhere in Arizona without any permits or background checks at all and there’s essentially no incidents of misbehavior by such people, I hardly see what the problem is. While concealed weapons permits are available to those wishing to carry discreetly, the law does not require such a permit to transport or store a firearm, even a loaded one, in a vehicle’s storage compartments so long as it’s in a holster or other similar case (so as to prevent accidential discharge).
What’s the problem?
Some of you may say that this would act as a deterrent. You make one critical assumption, you assume that a majority of people have a firearm, have brought it on campus, and are willing to use it in case they need to defend themselves.
I think that Mr. Wolgemuth is somewhat confused: the purpose of allowing the storage of arms in cars is not for self-defense on campus. Nobody is thinking that, in the event of a violent crime, they’ll be able to flee the building, run to the parking lot (almost always located around the perimeter of campus), retrieve their personal firearm, then return to be a Big Damn Hero(tm).
Rather, it’s for people who legally carry their firearms while not on campus — if the university prohibits the storage of arms in private vehicles on campus, that infringes on the rights of people who commute to school and wish to carry while traveling to and from the university.
Also, if you believe that you need to bring a gun on campus to feel safe, why would you go to a school where you don’t feel safe?
Feeling safe has nothing to do with actually being safe, as has been tragically demonstrated in various places in the last few years: Luby’s Cafeteria, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. The University of Arizona has even had a similar violent incident in its past. Clearly it’s been demonstrated that violent acts can occur anywhere, regardless of how safe one feels.
There is a reason we have a dedicated police department.
So did Virginia Tech. Fat lot of good it did them.
So does Tucson, but there’s still a substantial number of victims of violent crimes. I bet they “felt safe” prior to being victimized.
The police can’t be everywhere at once, nor can they respond instantly. Indeed, the courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect someone from harm.
Although this is not a response to gun control, it inevitably comes back to it.
He’s right — gun control doesn’t work. It didn’t work at Columbine, it didn’t work at Virginia Tech, and it didn’t work at the University of Arizona’s nursing school. What makes one think that repealing a useless prohibition on storing firearms in a locked vehicle on campus will have any bearing on increased rates of violent crime?
As much as I believe that people have a right to defend themselves, I hope that people realize what this law means and take steps to rectify this in the future.
Indeed, it means that people who can legally defend themselves off-campus while in transit to and from the university can now legally store their firearms in their locked vehicles while parked on campus. No more, no less.
I’m curious what Mr. Wolgemuth has against such people, and why he wants to “rectify” this legal change when it would strip rights from law-abiding people?
Indeed, Mr. Wolgemuth’s comments make a pretty solid case for allowing people to legally carry concealed on campus — no place, even a “weapon-free zone” like a university campus, can be completely safe from crime. I, like Mr. Wolgemuth, think that the average person is decent and honest, but not everyone is, and I’m not willing to bet my life on it. There’s plenty of violent crime on college campuses, why not allow law-abiding people to have the ability to protect themselves?
